Browsing by Author "Van Asch, Paul"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- The organisation of physiotherapy for people with multiple sclerosis across Europe: a multicentre questionnaire surveyPublication . Rasova, Kamila; Freeman, Jenny; Martinkova, Patricia; Pavlikova, Marketa; Cattaneo, Davide; Jonsdottir, Johanna; Henze, Thomas; Baert, Ilse; Van Asch, Paul; Santoyo, Carme; Smedal, Tori; Beiske, Antonie Giæver; Stachowiak, Małgorzata; Kovalewski, Mariusz; Nedeljkovic, Una; Bakalidou, Daphne; Alves-Guerreiro, José; Nilsagård, Ylva; Dimitrova, Erieta Nikolikj; Habek, Mario; Armutlu, Kadriye; Donzé, Cécile; Ross, Elaine; Ilie, Ana Maria; Martić, Andrej; Romberg, Anders; Feys, PeterBackground: Understanding the organisational set-up of physiotherapy services across different countries is increasingly important as clinicians around the world use evidence to improve their practice. This also has to be taken into consideration when multi-centre international clinical trials are conducted. This survey aimed to systematically describe organisational aspects of physiotherapy services for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) across Europe. Methods: Representatives from 72 rehabilitation facilities within 23 European countries completed an online web-based questionnaire survey between 2013 and 2014. Countries were categorised according to four European regions (defined by United Nations Statistics). Similarities and differences between regions were examined. Results: Most participating centres specialized in rehabilitation (82 %) and neurology (60 %), with only 38 % specialising in MS. Of these, the Western based Specialist MS centres were predominately based on outpatient services (median MS inpatient ratio 0.14), whilst the Eastern based European services were mostly inpatient in nature (median MS inpatient ratio 0.5). In almost all participating countries, medical doctors - specialists in neurology (60 %) and in rehabilitation (64 %) - were responsible for referral to/prescription of physiotherapy. The most frequent reason for referral to/prescription of physiotherapy was the worsening of symptoms (78 % of centres). Physiotherapists were the most common members of the rehabilitation team; comprising 49 % of the team in Eastern countries compared to approximately 30 % in the rest of Europe. Teamwork was commonly adopted; 86 % of centres based in Western countries utilised the interdisciplinary model, whilst the multidisciplinary model was utilised in Eastern based countries (p = 0.046). Conclusion: This survey is the first to provide data about organisational aspects of physiotherapy for people with MS across Europe. Overall, care in key organisational aspects of service provision is broadly similar across regions, although some variations, for example the models of teamwork utilised, are apparent. Organisational framework specifics should be considered anytime a multi-centre study is conducted and results from such studies are applied.
- Physiotherapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis across Europe: Regions and other factors that matterPublication . Martinková, Patrícia; Freeman, Jenny; Drabinová, Adéla; Erosheva, Elena; Cattaneo, Davide; Jonsdottir, Johanna; Baert, Ilse; Smedal, Tori; Romberg, Anders; Feys, Peter; Alves-Guerreiro, José; Habek, Mario; Henze, Thomas; Santoyo Medina, Carme; Beiske, Antonie; Van Asch, Paul; Bakalidou, Daphne; Salcı, Yeliz; Dimitrova, Erieta Nikolikj; Pavlíková, Markéta; Řasová, Kamilaackground A wide variety of interventions exists in physical therapy (PT), but knowledge about their use across different geographical regions is limited. This study investigated the use of PT interventions in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) across Europe. It aimed to determine whether regions differ in applying interventions, and explore whether factors other than regions play a role in their use. Methods In an online cross-sectional survey, 212 respondents from 115 European workplaces providing PT services to people with MS representing 26 countries (four European regions) participated. Cluster analysis, Pearson Chi-squared test and a Poisson regression model were used to analyze the data. Results Thirteen of 45 listed PT interventions were used by more than 75% of centers, while nine interventions were used by less than 25%. For 12 interventions, regions differed markedly in their use. Cluster analysis of centers identified four clusters similar in their intervention use. Cluster assignment did not fully align with regions. While center region was important, center size, number and gender of physical therapists working in the center, and time since qualification also played a role. Cluster analysis exploring the use of the interventions provided the basis for a categorization of PT interventions in line with their primary focus: 1. Physical activity (fitness/endurance/resistance) training; 2. Neuroproprioceptive “facilitation/inhibition”; 3. Motor/skill acquisition (individualized therapy led); 4. Technology based interventions. Conclusions To our knowledge this is the first study that has explored this topic in MS. The results broaden our understanding of the different PT interventions used in MS, as well as the context of their use.